Journal of International Relations and Foreign Policy
March 2014, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 55-83
ISSN: 2333-5866 (Print), 2333-5874 (Online)
Copyright © The Author(s). 2014. All Rights Reserved.
Published by American Research Institute for Policy Development
Russia's Policies on the Territorial Disputes in the Arctic
Valery Konyshev1 and Alexander Sergunin1
Abstract
The territorial disputes in the High North are seen by Russian strategists as a
significant threat to the country’s security. Some of these conflicts were successfully
settled down while others are still waiting for their resolution. This study examines
four cases – the U.S.-Soviet/Russian dispute on the Bering Sea, Norwegian-Russian
dispute on the Barents Sea, Svalbard issue and the Russian claim on the extension of
its continental shelf in the Arctic Ocean. The paper argues that currently Russia’s
Arctic strategy represents a mixture of the expansionist/revisionist and soft power
policies. On the one hand, Moscow is quite assertive as regards its claims on the
Arctic continental shelf as well as demonstration of its sovereignty over the Russian
part of the Arctic and military presence in the region. On the other hand, the
Kremlin underlines that all territorial disputes should be resolved peacefully –
through negotiations and on the basis of international law and institutions
Keywords: Russia, the Arctic, territorial disputes, conflict resolution
1. Introduction
Russia has important economic, societal, environmental and military-strategic
interests in the High North. These interests include the access, exploration and
development of the Arctic natural resources (especially the hydrocarbon ones).
Russia tries to modernize and further develop the industrial base of the Arctic
Zone of the Russian Federation (AZRF) which makes a significant and valuable
contribution to the country’s economy.
1
PhD, St. Petersburg State University & Higher School of Economics; office 232, entr. 8, 1/3 Smolny
St., St. Petersburg 191060 Russia. Phone: +7 960 282 3576, E-mail: [email protected]
56
Journal of International Relations and Foreign Policy, Vol. 2(1), March 2014
Moscow is also interested in opening up of the Northern Sea Route (NSR) for
international commercial traffic and developing circumpolar air routes. Moscow is
deeply concerned about the debilitating ecological system in the AZRF and trying to
stop and reverse the negative trends in this sphere. Russia still has considerable
military-strategic interests in the region. These have not lost their relevance with the
end of the Cold War. This continuity can clearly be seen in Russia’s security
perceptions of the Arctic as a region of both challenges and opportunities.
The territorial disputes in the High North are seen by Russian strategists as a
significant threat to the country’s security. It should be noted that the Arctic region
has inherited a number of territorial disputes from the Cold War era and Russia was a
party to them. Some of these conflicts were successfully settled down while others are
still waiting for their resolution. The analysis below addresses four cases – the U.S.Soviet/Russian dispute on the Bering Sea, Norwegian-Russian dispute on the Barents
Sea, Svalbard issue and the Russian claim on the extension of its continental shelf in
the Arctic Ocean.
2. The U.S.-Russian dispute on the Bering Sea
Named for the Danish-born Russian explorer Vitus Bering, the Bering Sea is
an 885,000 nautical mile2 (2,292,150 km2) extension of the Pacific Ocean that lies
between Russia and Alaska. It is bordered to the South by the Aleutian Islands, and
the northern Bering Strait separates it from the Arctic Ocean. It is the third largest sea
in the world. The combination of its natural characteristics, such as shallow
continental shelves and seasonal ice, has created one of the richest fisheries in the
world. The sea is connected to the Arctic Ocean by the Bering Strait, which separates
Asia from North America and is believed to have been a land bridge during the Ice
Age that enabled migration from Asia to North America.
2.1. The Sources of the Dispute
There were three major causes of the conflict:
 The Bering Sea constitutes a strategically important area for both the U.S. and
Russian fishing industries. It supplies a third of Russia’s and a half of the United
States’ total annual catch (Conley & Kraut 2010). On the Russian side, commercial
fisheries catch approximately $600 million worth of seafood annually, while the U.S.
Bering Sea catches are $1 billion worth approximately each year
Konyshev & Sergunin
57
(The International Bering Sea Forum 2006). Both for the Alaskan and Russian Far
East’s regional economies, fishery is important in terms of revenues, employment
and sustainable development. For example, in case of Russia the fishing industry
directly employs over 100,000 people and around one million indirectly (Laruelle
2014: Ch. 7). The Bering Sea catch is important not only for the U.S. and Russian
domestic seafood consumption but also for the two fishing industries’ expansion on
the East Asian markets.
It should be noted that along with the legal market a quickly developing black
market of Alaska pollack and Bering crab exists in the region, one which involves not
only the Russian Far East but also China, Japan and South Korea. It is estimated that
the fish caught in Russian waters exceeds the official quota by at least 150% (The
International Bering Sea Forum 2006). This is because poaching is rampant, and the
Russian organized crime is heavily involved in the fish trade. The Russian “fish, crab
and caviar mafias” not only aim at expanding its commercial activities and sidelining
their foreign rivals but also at establishing control over the regional governments and
federal agencies in the Russian Far East.
Overfishing creates numerous ecological problems in the region. According to
some accounts, as a result of intensive trawling, species such as crab and perch are in
serious decline in the entire Bering Sea, while the stocks of pollack fluctuate in an
unpredictable manner from year to year. The once-plentiful pollack have had
especially dramatic declines on the Western (Russian) side of the Bering Sea because
of illegal fishing. In the Eastern (U.S.) Bering Sea, harvests of snow crab have
declined by 85% since 1999 (The International Bering Sea Forum 2006).
In turn, the ecological problems serve as another source of the U.S.-Russia
tensions because they increase competition between American and Russian fishermen
and lead to mutual accusations of inability to effectively regulate commercial fisheries
in the region.

The ‘hydrocarbon factor’ also plays some role in keeping the dispute alive. First,
oil and gas deposits have been discovered in both the offshore and onshore
territories near the Bering Sea. But the main ‘apple of discord’ is not the Bering
Sea itself but the adjacent Chukchi and East Siberian Seas (parts of the Arctic
Ocean) where the U.S. and Russian maritime and continental shelves’ boundaries
are not settled.
58

Journal of International Relations and Foreign Policy, Vol. 2(1), March 2014
According to the recent U.S. Minerals Management Service’s estimates, the
potential oil and gas reserves in the Bering and Chukchi Seas comprise some 24
billion barrels of oil and 126 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (Kaczynski 2007: 2).
Moreover, the Bering Sea is an important transport junction between the Russian
Far East and East Asia, on the one hand, and Alaska, on the other. Additionally,
with growing importance of the NSR (controlled by Russia) and North-West
Passage (controlled by Canada) the Bering Sea (and especially the Bering Strait)
constitutes an important transit area for the future traffic from East Asia to
Europe and North America (and back).
2.2. The Historical Dynamics of the Conflict
Historically, the roots of the dispute can be detected as early as in the RussoAmerican accord on the cession of Alaska. The Convention of 1867 determined two
geographical lines – one in the Bering Sea and the second one in the Arctic Ocean –
to delimit American and Russian territories. However, in case of the Bering Sea the
1867 Agreement actually only applied to maritime territories and was not intended for
the delimitation of exclusive economic zones (EEZs) or continental shelf, the
concepts that did not exist at that time.
Being concerned about the possible discovery of unknown lands by Western
countries in the Arctic Ocean and repeated U.S. claims on some islands in this ocean
(such as Wrangell, Herald, Bennett, Jeannette, and Henrietta Islands), the Bolshevik
Russia tried to fix its control over the remote northern territories.
On April 15, 1926, the Central Executive Committee of the Soviet Union
issued a decree entitled “On the Proclamation of Lands and Islands Located in the
Arctic Ocean as Territory of the USSR”. According to the decree, the Western
boundary of the Soviet sector was defined as the meridian 168°49' 30" W. long. from
Greenwich, bisecting the strait separating the Ratmanov and Kruzenstern Islands, of
the Diomede group in the Bering Sea (The Central Executive Committee of the
Soviet Union 1964).
Konyshev & Sergunin
59
As some U.S. legal experts believe, in practical terms, this decree led to
establishing the Soviet control not only over the five islands in the Arctic Ocean but
also on the Copper Island (with Sea Lion Rock and Sea Otter Rock) which, according
to this school, should belong to the U.S. under the 1867 Convention (Olson et al.
1998). However, as the U.S. State Department’s official document emphasizes, none
of the islands or rocks above were included in the U.S. purchase of Alaska from
Russia in 1867, and they have never been claimed by the U.S., although Americans
were involved in the discovery and exploration of some of them (U.S. Department of
State 2009).
Over time, and in particular when in 1976 both the USSR and U.S. decided to
define the limits of their EEZs in the economically important region, the 1867
Convention line in the Bering Sea became the contentious marine boundary between
the two countries. In 1977 the U.S. and USSR exchanged diplomatic notes indicating
their intent “to respect the line set forth in the 1867 Convention” as the limit to each
countries’ fisheries jurisdiction where the 200 nautical mile boundaries overlapped.
However, the differences in each country’s interpretation of the 1867 Convention
became apparent very soon, making an area of nearly 15,000 nautical miles 2 a subject
of a dispute. While the two countries agreed to continue respecting each other’s
interpretation of the Alaska purchase agreement as an interim measure, the U.S.Soviet talks began in the early 1980s to resolve the differing interpretations.
Unfortunately, the language of the 1867 Convention was silent on the type of line,
map projection and horizontal datum used to describe this boundary. Moreover,
neither Moscow nor Washington has produced the authenticated maps used during
the negotiations to resolve the issue.
It should be noted that cartographers normally use two types of lines to
demarcate marine boundaries. There are rhomb lines, on the one hand, and geodetic
lines (also known as great circle arcs), on the other (Kaczynski 2007: 2). Both lines are
used on two common map projections, Mercator and conical. Depending on the type
of line and map projection used, lines will be either straight or curved. For instance, a
rhomb line will appear as a straight line on a Mercator projection, whereas a geodetic
line will be a curved one (see figure 1).
60
Journal of International Relations and Foreign Policy, Vol. 2(1), March 2014
Because both Washington and Moscow interpreted the 1867 line as a straight
line, the USSR defined the Bering Sea marine boundary as a rhomb line on a Mercator
projection while the U.S. opted for a geodetic line on a conical projection. As a result
of these differences each country’s claim included a maximal part of the disputed
maritime area.
It took nine years of negotiations to conclude an agreement on a new U.S.Soviet maritime boundary in the Bering Sea. According to some speculations, Soviet
negotiators may have ceded territory in the Bering Sea to the U.S. in order to waive
the U.S. objections to the Soviet proposals to divide the territory north of the Bering
Strait (in the Arctic Ocean). Furthermore, Moscow probably hoped that agreement
with Washington could help the USSR to accelerate its talks with Norway on their
maritime boundary in the Barents Sea. Other reports suggested that Washington
promised some 150,000 tons of pollack compensation in an annual quota from the
U.S. side of the Bering Sea if the treaty was to be signed and ratified by Moscow. Such
a practice has actually existed in late 1970s but the U.S. stopped it as a part of
economic sanctions against the USSR after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in
1979. Finally, some authors speculated that the Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard
Shevardnadze simply exceeded his authority by signing the maritime boundary
agreement with his U.S. counterpart James Baker (Kaczynski 2007: 4; Palamar’ 2009).
However, the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has repudiated these
speculations in 2005 by saying that the draft of the treaty was endorsed by the Soviet
government (Palamar’ 2009).
Konyshev & Sergunin
61
Figure 1. Differences Between the Bering Sea U.S.-Russian Marine Boundary of 1867
Using Rhomb and Geodetic Lines on a Mercator Projection
Source: Kaczynski 2007: 3
62
Journal of International Relations and Foreign Policy, Vol. 2(1), March 2014
The agreement which was signed on June 1, 1990 (Agreement between the
United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 1990) split the
difference between the US claim to a geodetic line and the Soviet claim to a rhomb
line as shown on a Mercator projection (see figure 2). The section between the
Russian and U.S. sectors, which lies 200 miles out from the coastlines of both
countries, is known as “The Donut Hole,” and is considered international waters, or a
global commons. This comprises 10% of the Bering Sea. The 1990 Agreement also
created several “special areas.” Special areas were areas on either country’s respective
side of the 1867 line but beyond 200 nautical miles from the baseline. There were
three such areas on the U.S. side of the marine boundary called “eastern special areas”
and one on the Soviet side called the “western special area.” The USSR ceded all
claims to sovereign rights and jurisdiction in the eastern special areas to the U.S. and
respectively Washington ceded all claims to sovereign rights and jurisdiction in the
western special area to Moscow.
Figure 2. The U.S.-Soviet Maritime Boundary, as of 1990 Agreement
Source: http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/128740.htm
Konyshev & Sergunin
63
The same day (June 1), in a separate exchange of diplomatic notes, the two
countries agreed to apply the agreement provisionally (State Department Watch
2009). This agreement took effect on June 15, 1990. Being an executive agreement, it
can be rescinded at any time by either party unilaterally.
Although both countries ceded territory from their previous claims, the US
still controlled a far greater amount of area in the Bering Sea than if the new
agreement had been based on the equidistant line principle normally used in
international boundary disputes. It was quickly ratified by the U.S. Senate (on
September 16, 1991), which was eager to keep control on the area rich in fish and to
begin the sale of offshore oil and gas leases.
2.3 . Criticism of the 1990 Agreement
The 1990 Agreement has evoked a heavy criticism both in the Soviet and
Russian parliaments for rushing the deal by the Gorbachev-Shevardnadze tandem,
ceding the Russian fishing rights and other maritime benefits. Many Russian
politicians and analysts called for renegotiation of the agreement.
The opponents to ratification have put forward multiple arguments.
According to one legal expert, the Baker-Shevardnadze line (which was mainly based
on the 1867 Convention line) brought 70 percent of the disputed areas of the Bering
Sea under American jurisdiction. If instead the median line principle had been used, it
could have provided the USSR with an additional 25,000 km2 of sea (Vylegzhanin
2010). According to the State Duma’s (Russian legislature) resolution of July 14, 2002,
because of the 1990 Agreement, Moscow had lost two sectors of the Soviet EEZ in
the Bering Sea (23,700 km2 and 7,700 km2) and 43,600 km2 of its continental shelf in
the central part of the Bering Sea (beyond the 200 nautical mile EEZ). Russia has also
lost between 1.6 and 1.9 million tons of fish in the 1990s (State Duma of the Russian
Federation 2002). The Navarinsk and Aleut fields which are potentially rich in
hydrocarbons were also ceded to the U.S.
The opponents of the Treaty have also questioned the legal status of the
Baker-Shevardnadze executive agreement because the Soviet treaty law did not allow
the procedure of an international agreement’s ‘provisional implementation’ (Palamar’
2009).
64
Journal of International Relations and Foreign Policy, Vol. 2(1), March 2014
As result of the above criticism first the Soviet Supreme Council and then the
Russian State Duma had postponed the ratification of the 1990 Treaty for indefinite
time.
There were the U.S. critics of the 1990 Agreement as well. They believed that
this treaty has legitimized Russia’s control over eight islands in the Arctic Ocean and
Bering Sea as well as deprived Alaska from the maritime area which is rich in fish and
– potentially – oil and gas.
The American opponents of the 1990 Treaty insisted that it has been
concluded with numerous violations of the U.S. legal procedures. Particularly, it was
prepared secretly, without consultations with the U.S. Congress. They also noted that
the U.S.-Soviet executive agreement on provisional implementation of the
delimitation treaty has not been disclosed in any public news release when it has been
signed on June 1, 1990. It was not mentioned neither in the President George Bush's
transmittal of the proposed treaty to the Senate nor at the Senate committee hearings
or in the full house debate in September 1991 (Olson et al. 1998).
It should be noted, however, that in contrast with the Russian opponents to
the 1990 Agreement their American ‘counterparts’ were marginal and unable to get
significant support at the federal level (neither in Congress nor President’s
Administration).
2.3. Current status of the Dispute
Given the Russian dissatisfaction with the 1990 Treaty, under the Clinton
administration the talks between the U.S. State Department and Russian Foreign
Ministry have begun in an attempt to resolve the issue. There was even an offer to
concede some fish quotas to Russia as an incentive for ratification in 1997 but it has
been withdrawn by the U.S. side without any explanation (Kaczynski 2007: 5).
Washington maintains its firm position that the 1990 Treaty is binding and the
Baker-Shevardnadze line constitutes the maritime boundary between the two
countries. The U.S. policy aims at providing evidence of a continued “general state
practice” that the boundary delineated by the 1990 Agreement is the actual marine
border between the U.S. and Russia.
Konyshev & Sergunin
65
Such evidence as well as “opinio juris” – a sense of obligation to comply with
the practice - are required by the customary international law to legitimize an
international agreement that did not fully come into force.
As some experts believe, Russia cannot legally undermine the 1990 Treaty,
even if it refuses to ratify it (Laruelle 2014: ch. 5). Moscow has observed the BakerShevardnadze line for more than 20 years and thus helped Washington to provide
both the evidence of a continued “general state practice” and “opinio juris”. As some
Russian international law experts suggest, it is not in Moscow’s interest to question
the legitimacy of the 1990 Treaty because, on the one hand, such a negative policy can
undermine Russia’s reputation of a responsible international actor and, on the other
hand, the 1867 line (on which the 1990 document is based) can be both mutually
beneficial and helpful for reaching a U.S.-Russian compromise on the division of the
Arctic maritime territories (Vylegzhanin 2010: 9).
As far as Russia’s future policies on the 1990 Treaty is concerned Moscow can
at best hope to negotiate some new, more favorable, fishing rules to compensate the
losses incurred in fishing because of this agreement and create new bilateral
mechanisms to open the U.S. fishing zones up to Russian fishermen. There are also
some plans to create a U.S.-Russian natural park for the protection of biodiversity in
the Bering Strait region with a provisional name of Beringia and thus to settle the
problem in a friendly way (Laruelle 2014: ch. 5; Palamar’ 2009). Such a park could be
based on the experiences of the existing ethno-natural park with the same name on
the Russian side of the Bering Strait (established in 1993) (http://beringiapark.ru/).
The two countries acknowledge the positive experiences got from the
implementation of "The Convention on the Conservation and Management of
Pollack Resources in the Central Bering Sea", which was signed in 1994 by China,
South Korea, Russia, the U.S., Japan and Poland and was designed to regulate
fisheries on the “Donut Hole.”
On the formal level, the U.S. and Russia regularly holds discussions on Bering
Sea issues, particularly issues related to fisheries management, but, as the American
side emphasizes, these discussions do not affect the placement of the U.S.-Russia
boundary or the jurisdiction over any territory or the sovereignty of any territory.
66
Journal of International Relations and Foreign Policy, Vol. 2(1), March 2014
The U.S. has no intention of reopening discussion of the 1990 Maritime
Boundary Agreement.
3. The Russian-Norwegian dispute on the Barents Sea
3.1. The Sources of the Dispute
The Barents Sea is the part of the Arctic Ocean. Named for the Dutch
explorer Willem Barents, it is bounded by the Norwegian and northwestern Russian
mainland (south), the Norwegian Sea and Svalbard (west), Franz Josef Land (north),
and the Kara Sea and Novaya Zemlya (east). It is 1,300 km long and 1,050 km wide
and covers 1,405,000 sq km. Its average depth is 229 m, with a maximum depth of
600 m in the major Bear Island Trench.
The Barents Sea is rich in various natural resources. First, due to the North
Atlantic drift, it has a high biological production compared to other seas and oceans
of similar latitude. The fisheries of the Barents Sea, in particular the cod fisheries, are
of great importance for both Norway and Russia.
Second, according to some accounts, the Barents Sea may hold vast
hydrocarbon resources. A recent assessment by the U.S. Geological Survey estimated
the mean undiscovered, conventional, technically recoverable petroleum resources in
the Barents Sea Shelf include 11 billion barrels of crude oil, 380 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas, and two billion barrels of natural gas liquids (Klett and Gautier 2009).
Norway and the USSR started their exploration activities in the region in the
late 1970s, but in the 1980s they agreed not to carry out exploration or exploitation
activities in the previously disputed area. Deposits discovered so far in the Barents Sea
outside the formerly disputed area include the Norwegian Snøhvit gas field and Goliat
oil field and the Russian Shtokman gas field (see figure 3).
The Barents Sea is also an important transport junction between Russia, on
the one hand, and North Europe and North Atlantic, on the other. Moreover, the
Northern Sea Route starts on the border of the Barents and Kara seas and continues
eastward.
Konyshev & Sergunin
67
Figure 3. Oil and gas resources in the Barents Sea
Source:http://images.yandex.ru/yandsearch?source=psearch&text=norwegianrussian%20dispute%20in%20the%20barents%20sea&noreask=1&pos=3&rpt=simag
e&lr=47&uinfo=sw-953-sh-419-fw-765-fh-448-pd
1&img_url=http%3A%2F%2Fbarentsobserver.com%2Fsites%2Fbarentsobserver.co
m%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Farticles%2FBarentsSea.fieldResources_0.jpg
The pursuit of control over the economically and strategically important
region as well as the lack of a proper legal regime in the Barents Sea were conducive
to the Norwegian-Russian dispute on these maritime territories.
3.2. History of the Dispute
The Norwegian-Russian dispute on the Barents Sea dates back to the 1920s.
The above mentioned 1926 Soviet decree “On the Proclamation of Lands and Islands
Located in the Arctic Ocean as Territory of the USSR” has reiterated the Tsarist
Russia’s legal tradition that had been characterized by the notion of the sectoral line,
that was, the line of longitude that starts from the terminus of the land boundary and
intersects with the North Pole. The sectoral principle of demarcation of the Arctic
territories, however, was not supported by some other coastal states, including
Norway.
68
Journal of International Relations and Foreign Policy, Vol. 2(1), March 2014
In 1957, Norway and the USSR agreed on their first maritime boundary in the
Arctic. This boundary runs from the northern end point of the land boundary in a
northeastern direction through the Varangerfjord and terminates on the
Varangerfjordʼs closing line, thereby not extending into the Barents Sea. It was not
until after each country claimed exclusive rights to the continental shelf in 1963 and
1968 that Norway and Russia entered into informal talks about their maritime
boundary in the Barents Sea in 1970. Oslo and Moscow agreed to conduct
negotiations on the basis of Article 6 of the multilateral Convention on the
Continental Shelf of 1958 (United Nations 1958). However, Norwayʼs and Russiaʼs
different perceptions of delimitation of the maritime territory in the Barents Sea
brought negotiations to a halt.
Moscow has traditionally based its position on a sector line, running roughly
along longitude 32 E northwards from the Russian coastline. Oslo, on the contrary,
has based its position on an equidistance (median) line between the coasts on either
side of the border. It was the continental shelf between these two lines, of
approximately 155000 km² (and the overlapping exclusive economic zones within this
area) that constituted the disputed area in the Barents Sea. In addition to this, there
were overlapping claims further north in the Arctic Ocean, of approximately 20000
km². Altogether the disputed area was approximately 175000 km².
In 1977, the talks between Oslo and Moscow became further complicated by
the establishment of a 200 nm (nautical mile) Norwegian EEZ and a 200 nm Soviet
Fishery Zone. These zones were not completely identical with the countries’
continental shelf claims in the region. The so-called “Loop Hole” in the middle of the
Barents Sea constituted an area of some 62400 km² of high seas that was completely
surrounded by the Norwegian and Russian 200 nm zones. Both Oslo and Moscow
agreed to draw a single maritime boundary for the continental shelf and the EEZ, but
they still were unable to agree on the boundary line.
However, Oslo and Moscow realized the necessity of regulating foreign
fishing activities in the Barents Sea and, for this reason, signed a provisional fishing
agreement in 1978 (the so-called “Grey Zone Agreement”). This agreement was
initially designed for one year, but it remains in force, having been renewed annually.
Its geographical scope is different from the previously disputed area.
Konyshev & Sergunin
69
It applies to a total area of 67500 km², of which 23000 km² were in
undisputed Norwegian waters and 3000 km² were in undisputed Russian waters.
There were ups and downs in the Norwegian-Soviet/Russian negotiations
over the following years. For example, in 1991 there were official announcements that
the talks were to be finalized soon, but no early agreement was achieved. Through the
1990s and 2000s, regular conflicts between Oslo and Moscow took place because
Norway, for ecological reasons, has introduced strict rules and fixed quotas to regulate
the fishery in the region which were never been accepted by the Russian side. This led
to numerous tensions over the inspection and boarding of Russian fishing boats by
the Norwegian Coastal Guards.
Several factors have eventually caused the Norwegian-Russian compromise:
 First, Norway and Russia signed and ratified the 1982 United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (United Nations 1982) in 1996 and 1997,
respectively. By doing this they modified the rules applicable to the delimitation of
the continental shelf and the EEZ because the UNCLOS provides identical rules
for these legal procedures, thus favoring the median rather than sectoral principle
of demarcation of maritime territories.
 Second, in the 1990s and 2000s the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The
Hague and specially appointed arbitration tribunals have issued decisions that
clarified important principles and provided guidance for coastal states.
Particularly, the ICJ has specified that the solution is to be based on objective
geographical features where any major disparities in the respective coastal lengths
may be of significance. Both Norway and Russia took a notice of the ICJ’s
decisions to solve their dispute in the Barents Sea.
 Third, in addition to the above legal factors, both Oslo and Moscow had some
serious political reasons to finally strike a deal. For Norway, such a compromise
was important because the dispute with Russia was one of the last ones of that
sort in its relations with the Arctic neighbors. In 2006 an agreement between
Norway, Iceland, Denmark, and the Faroe Islands on a modus vivendi on the
delimitation of their common continental shelf beyond 200 nm in the Northeast
Atlantic was signed. In 2009 Oslo got a decision from the UN Commission on
the Limits of Continental Shelf (CLCS) that formally defined the limits of the
Norwegian shelf and EEZ in the Arctic (beyond the Barents Sea).
70
Journal of International Relations and Foreign Policy, Vol. 2(1), March 2014
The proposed accord with Moscow would leave the maritime boundary between
the outer continental shelves of the Norwegian Svalbard Archipelago and
Greenland as the last unresolved boundary issue affecting Norway in the Arctic.
The legal experts believe that this issue will likely be resolved soon.
On the other hand, by solving the Barents Sea dispute Moscow could have
free hands for continuation of its ‘fight’ for the underwater Lomonosov and
Mendeleev ridges that are potentially rich in hydrocarbons and where its ambitions
collide with the Danish and Canadian ones. Moreover, by striking a compromise the
two countries could get great PR benefits because now they could present themselves
as responsible international actors who were able to solve one of the most
complicated international disputes by peaceful methods.
 Fourth, the economic interests drove the Norwegian-Russian compromise. Oslo
was particularly interested in the development of hydrocarbon deposits in the
disputed area because since 2001, oil production on the Norwegian shelf has
declined. With the end of the 1980s moratorium on hydrocarbon exploitation and
exploration activities in the disputed area, a resumption of those activities and
new discoveries could be expected. In case of Russia the need for new
hydrocarbon deposits was not that strong as in case of Norway because Moscow
had enough fields to develop in the undisputed areas. However, in terms of
strategic control over the region which is potentially rich in oil and gas Moscow
was interested in reaching an agreement with Oslo to legitimize its territorial
ambitions.
 Finally, the two sides were psychologically tired of 40-year-long negotiations and
were eager for putting an end to the dispute, on the one hand, and having a
success story in their bilateral relations, on another.
3.3. The 2010 Agreement
In 2007, Oslo and Moscow signed a new document that revised the 1957
agreement by extending the maritime boundary in the Varangerfjord area northwards
to the intersection of Norwayʼs preferred median line and Russiaʼs preference, the
sector line in the Barents Sea. Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre then
stated that this agreement should pave a way for an accord on the area of overlapping
claims in the Barents Sea.
Konyshev & Sergunin
71
However, it was not until April 2010 that Norwegian Prime Minister Jens
Stoltenberg and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev publicly announced that
negotiations had been completed, with the exception of some technicalities. The final
agreement was signed in Murmansk, Russia, on September 15, 2010, and has been
subsequently approved by the two countries’ national parliaments. The document
came into force in July 2011.
Figure 4. Delimitation of maritime territories in the Barents Sea in accordance with
the 2010 Norwegian-Russian treaty
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11299024
Oslo has withdrawn some of its territorial claims and Moscow has consented
to a shift of the 1926 demarcation line to share the 175,000 km 2 of disputed area in
two almost equal parts defined by eight points (see figure 4). The northern terminal
point of the delimitation line is defined as the intersection of the line drawn through
points 7 and 8 and the line connecting the easternmost point and the westernmost
point of the still undefined outer limits of the countries’ continental shelves (Treaty
between the Kingdom of Norway and the Russian Federation 2010).
72
Journal of International Relations and Foreign Policy, Vol. 2(1), March 2014
The agreement allows Russia to exercise such sovereign rights and jurisdiction
derived from EEZ jurisdiction that Norway could otherwise exercise in an area east
of the maritime delimitation line that lies within 200 nm of the Norwegian mainland
and beyond 200 nm off the Russian coast.
Being entered into force, the new agreement terminated the Grey Zone
Agreement of 1978. However, this treaty will not alter or adversely affect the
Norwegian-Russian cooperation in the field of fisheries. This cooperation will be
continued, for example, in the Norwegian-Russian Joint Fisheries Commission.
The 2010 agreement put an end to the 1980s moratorium on the exploration
and exploitation of hydrocarbon resources. However, the treaty did not provoke
unhealthy competition in this field. Rather, it has some provisions for the coordinated
exploitation of transboundary hydrocarbon resources.
3.4. Implications of the 2010 Norwegian-Russian Agreement
In Norway, the Agreement has been ratified unanimously and is considered
very positively, while in Russia strong debates on the documents’ negative
consequences ended up by the ratification by the State Duma only because of the
constitutional majority of the ruling United Russia party. Both political and expert
communities are split up in two almost equal parts, as well as the disputed area.
The main arguments of the Treaty’s opponents boil down to the following:
first, the Treaty is an “unjustified concession” of the sovereign area to Norway, and,
second, the content of the Treaty is not sufficiently elaborated with regard to its
future application (Baliev 2011; Reut 2011).
The first argument is rather emotional, although having its own rationale in
claiming that the Russian-Norwegian relations are far from being ideal in practice.
There are contradictions over fisheries and continuing discussions over the
“administrative sovereignty” of Norway at Svalbard/Spitsbergen. Thus, the only
reason to sign the Treaty is the possibilities of hydrocarbons extraction, which actually
would be possible only in a long-term perspective.
Konyshev & Sergunin
73
The second argument, although being strictly judicial, partly overlaps with the
first counter-Treaty argument named above. It is stated that the Treaty disregards
such an important issue as the regime of sea and shelf areas adjacent to Svalbard,
which might have negative effect on the work of Russian companies in the region.
On the other hand, the proponents of the Treaty maintain that by signing the
agreement both Norway and Russia clarified their maritime boundary in the Barents
Sea, thereby ensuring predictability and legal certainty in the region. This is important
for enacting and enforcing by the two countries environmental rules and fishery
regulations as well as for the future exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbon
resources in the area.
By concluding the 2010 agreement, Oslo and Moscow demonstrated their
eagerness to settle remaining disputes that create obstacles to the international
economic cooperation in the region. Particularly, the 2010 agreement can facilitate a
future settlement of the residual dispute on the interpretation of the Paris Treaty on
Svalbard of 1920 (see next section).
The 2010 agreement has also demonstrated that in resolving their territorial
disputes Norway and Russia are committed to the international law, particularly to the
UNCLOS and, in a broader context, to the principles of the Ilulissat Declaration of
2008 that confirmed the eagerness of the five Arctic coastal states (A-5) to solve
disputes between them by peaceful means, on the basis of international law (Ilulissat
Declaration 2008). Finally, Oslo and Moscow signaled to other A-5 states that by
adopting a common policy on conflict resolution they can reinforce their claim to
leadership on Arctic affairs against emerging actors such as the European Union and
East Asian countries.
4. Problems Pertaining to Svalbard
The Svalbard archipelago is located halfway between mainland Norway and
the North Pole. It is surrounded by the Norwegian Sea and the Greenland Sea to the
west, the Barents Sea to the east and the Arctic Ocean to the north. The land
territories of the archipelago cover approximately 62 700 km², whereof about 54 per
cent are ice-covered. The largest island of the archipelago is called Spitsbergen, until
1925 this name was used to refer to the whole archipelago.
74
Journal of International Relations and Foreign Policy, Vol. 2(1), March 2014
The administrative centre of Longyearbyen and the other inhabited areas of
the archipelago are located on this island.
The status of Svalbard is regulated by the Paris Treaty concerning the
archipelago of Spitsbergen of 9 February 1920 that recognized full Norwegian
sovereignty over the archipelago and required Norway to ensure certain rights for
other contracting parties’ nationals (Treaty Concerning the Archipelago of
Spitsbergen 1920). The USSR formally recognized Norwegian sovereignty over the
archipelago in 1924, in an exchange of notes with Norway. The Soviet Union became
a party to the Treaty in 1935. Today, there are about 40 States Parties to the Treaty.
Although Russia and Norway have solved their 40-year dispute on the
delimitation of maritime territories in the Barents Sea the two countries still have
several unresolved questions concerning the Svalbard Archipelago.
Figure 5. Norwegian maritime boundaries
Source: http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/ud/selected-topics/civil--rights/Spesiellfolkerett/folkerettslige-sporsmal-i-tilknytning-ti.html?id=537481
Konyshev & Sergunin
75
The first problem stems from Oslo’s decision to establish the Fisheries
Protection Zone which is a 200-nautical-mile zone of fisheries jurisdiction zone
around the Svalbard archipelago (see figure 5). It was established on 3 June 1977
pursuant to the Act of 17 December 1976 relating to the EEZ of Norway. It should
be noted that Norway chose in 1977 until further notice to establish a 200-mile
fisheries protection zone rather than a full exclusive economic zone. According to
Oslo’s official position, the main purpose of the zone was to ensure the protection
and sound management of the living resources, since this is one of the most
important nursery areas for important fish stocks. Norway underlines that as a coastal
State, it has a special responsibility for the management of the living resources in
these areas. The Norwegian legal experts maintain that rules governing the zone are
formulated in such a way that they would not be in conflict with those of the 1920
Treaty. They also believe that these regulatory measures take into account previous
foreign fishing patterns in the area and that even though Oslo has a legal right to
reserve fishing in the zone exclusively for Norwegian fishermen, its management
practices are non-discriminatory (Fife 2013).
Russia (similar to some other signatories to the Paris Treaty) does not
recognize the aforementioned decision by Norway and considers this area open to
international economic activities, including fishing (Portsel’ 2011). Norway regarded
such fishing as poaching and a number of arrests of Russian trawlers by the
Norwegian coastal guards took place over the last two decades. In 2004 Russia’s
Northern Fleet started regular patrols of the waters around Svalbard to protect
Russian trawlers. The Norwegian side interpreted such practice as illegal, viewing it as
a sign of Russian imperialistic ambitions and of Moscow’s unwillingness to cooperate
with Oslo to settle economic disputes. The 2010 Russian-Norwegian Treaty did not
solve the problem and the freedom of the Russian fishing around Svalbard remains an
open question.
Another problem is related to Russia’s potential economic activities on the
archipelago’s shelf and concerns the significant difference in taxation levels between
mainland Norway and the archipelago (Portsel’ 2011). Russian companies accessing
the Svalbard continental shelf believe that they should enjoy the rights which are
envisaged in the 1920 Paris Treaty, particularly the right to pay taxes less than 1
percent of the cost of the hydrocarbons produced.
76
Journal of International Relations and Foreign Policy, Vol. 2(1), March 2014
But as Russian international law specialist Alexander Oreshenkov explained,
“If a deposit beginning within the limits of the archipelago’s territory extends beyond
its territorial waters, the Russian companies will be expected to observe the norms of
Norway’s continental mainland petroleum legislation, which means that 78 percent of
their earnings from the hydrocarbons produced outside Norway’s territorial waters
will go away in tax payments to the Norwegian treasury” (Oreshenkov 2010). These
financial stakes are bound to be at the core of future negotiations.
The Russian presence on Svalbard remains the subject of conflict as well. For
example, the plans to build a fish-processing plant, which will compete with
Norwegian firms, were not well received. In recent years, the Norwegian governor of
Spitsbergen has taken a whole series of restrictive measures: he has expanded nature
conservation zones to which access by Russian scientists and tourists is restricted or
prohibited, required helicopters to obtain advance permission before landing, and
introduced rules for the registration of all scientific projects in a special data base.
When the Russian side responded to these measures by denying Norwegian scientists
investigating biological resources in the Barents Sea access to the Russian EEZ, this
was viewed as a discriminatory act.
Despite these disputes both Moscow and Oslo believe that problems
pertaining to Svalbard can be solved in the foreseeable future through negotiations
and on the basis of international law.
5. Russian Claims on the Arctic Continental Shelf
According to the UNCLOS, a coastal state has exclusive sovereign rights to
explore and exploit the natural resources of its continental shelf up to 200 nautical
miles from its shores. Beyond this limit, a coastal state has to provide scientific
evidence to establish the extent of the legally defined continental shelf up to 150
nautical miles to exercise the same rights. According to international law, a coastal
state can exploit living and non-living resources of the shelf’s seabed and subsoil, but
these rights do not extend to resources in the water column such as fish stocks, which
are covered by a separate regime. The application should be submitted to the UN
CLCS, a review body of scientists created under UNCLOS. The CLCS covers
continental-shelf claims beyond the 200 nautical miles zone, up to a maximum of 350
nautical miles. It should be noted that the CLCS's ruling is final and binding one.
Konyshev & Sergunin
77
Due to marine research that has been systematically made in the High North
since the Soviet time, in 2001 Russia became the first country to apply to the CLCS.
Other coastal states (except the U.S. which did not ratify the UNCLOS) followed
Russia. For example, Norway was the second (after Russia) to submit its application
to the CLCS in 2006 and the first one among the Arctic state to get a positive decision
from the Commission.
In its 2001 claim, Russia argued that the Lomonosov Ridge and the AlphaMendeleev Ridge are both geological extensions of its continental Siberian shelf and,
thus, that parts of the Central Arctic Ocean, as well as parts of the Barents Sea, the
Bering Sea, and the Sea of Okhotsk, fall under its jurisdiction. In effect Russia claimed
sovereign rights over resources on the seabed area of some 1.2 million km 2 outside
the 200-mile line (see figure 6).
However the CLCS found the substantiation of the Russian claim on the shelf
insufficient and asked for more information. Since then a new submission has been
under preparation, reportedly to be finalized by 2015. Comprehensive research
expeditions are being organized to collect data. The expedition of 2007 with flag
planting as a by-product was one of them.
Interestingly, in preparing a new submission Russia uses not only the
academia but also the military. For example, the objective of the Russian Navy's
mission within the framework of the expedition Arktika-2012 was to prove that its
landmass extends to the North Pole by drilling into the sea floor to collect rock
samples for scientific analysis. In September 2012, the Kalitka, a Losharik-class
nuclear-powered auxiliary submarine, was used to guide the Kapitan Dranitsyn and
Dickson ice breakers in drilling three boreholes at two different sites on the Mendeleev
ridge, collecting over 500 kg of rock samples (IISS 2012).
78
Journal of International Relations and Foreign Policy, Vol. 2(1), March 2014
Figure 6. The Russian claim on the Arctic continental shelf
International experts suggest several scenarios for the further developments if
a second, revised submission be returned by the CLCS. One extreme would be for
Moscow to withdraw from the UNCLOS and just declare unilaterally that its
continental shelf reaches up to the North Pole. Russia would still retain the right to a
continental shelf, and would find itself in the same position as the U.S., which remains
outside the UNCLOS, and would have to rely on customary law to support its claim.
However, this option is hardly acceptable for Moscow because it would provide a
much less secure legal position than would a CLCS’ decision which is considered as a
final and binding ruling.
The strong nationalistic groupings in Russia would support such unilateralism.
However, Russia’s official policy undoubtedly lies within the UNCLOS framework.
Russia has much to lose if it undermines the authority of the UNCLOS in the Arctic.
Konyshev & Sergunin
79
Moscow tries to avoid a conflict situation because any conflict, even if not
armed, would prove to the world that the UNCLOS does not work and weaken the
legitimacy of the Convention. Such weakening is seen by Moscow as dangerous and
unacceptable.
As Moe (forthcoming) put it, the other extreme scenario would be to accept
that the initial submission was too ambitious and not substantiated by geophysical
research and come back to the Commission with a revised, less expansive position.
On the one hand, this alternative would definitely show respect for international law.
However, on the other hand, such an initiative would entail large domestic political
costs for a Russian leader who would dare to abandon Russia’s ambitious Arctic
claim.
Both foreign and Russian experts do not exclude one more, third, scenario
which, they believe, is both possible and the most likely. That option is postponement
of a new submission (Moe; Zagorsky 2013). First, it will take the CLCS years or even
decades to consider the existing and forthcoming applications. Even if it becomes
clear that the Russian claims on the Lomonosov and Mendeleev ridges cannot be
substantiated, all the Arctic states may decide that it is better to agree on disagreement
and continue business as usual. Besides the need to preserve the UNCLOS in the
Arctic, also a realistic assessment of their economic interests and technical capabilities
prevent them from a conflict over the disputed areas. These areas are very deep and
extraction of oil and gas there will not become profitable for many decades.
Moreover, as the most authoritative assessment of Arctic mineral resources from the
US Geological Survey maintains, most hydrocarbon resources are likely to be found in
relatively shallower waters, within the 200-mile limit (U.S. Geological Survey 2008).
Most of these uncontroversial continental shelves are relatively unexplored and the
conflicting parties first should develop them.
In any case, as Moscow repeatedly underlined, the Kremlin plans to solve the
problem within the UNCLOS framework, peacefully and on the basis of a solid
research data.
80
Journal of International Relations and Foreign Policy, Vol. 2(1), March 2014
6. Conclusion
Currently, Russia’s Arctic strategy represents a mixture of the
expansionist/revisionist and soft power policies. On the one hand, Moscow is quite
assertive as regards its claims on the Arctic continental shelf as well as demonstration
of its sovereignty over the Russian part of the Arctic and military presence in the
region. On the other hand, the Kremlin underlines that all territorial disputes should
be resolved peacefully – through negotiations and on the basis of international law
and institutions (such as UNCLOS and UN CLCS).
More generally, it is safe to assume that in the foreseeable future Moscow’s
strategy in the region will be predictable and pragmatic rather than aggressive or
spontaneous. In contrast with the internationally wide-spread stereotype of Russia as a
revisionist power in the High North, there are some grounds to believe that Moscow
will continue to pursue a double-faceted strategy in the region: On the one hand, such
a strategy aims at defending Russia’s legitimate economic and political interests in the
region. On the other hand, Moscow is open to cooperation with foreign partners that
are willing to partake in exploiting the Arctic natural resources, developing sea routes
and solving residual territorial disputes and numerous socio-economic and
environmental problems of the region.
References
(1990). Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics on the Maritime Boundary. [Online] Available:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/125431.pdf, accessed on December
12, 2013.
Baliev, A. (2011). Naneset li nam usherb noviy dogovor s Norvergiey? [Is the new treaty with
Norway harmful for us?]. Stoletie, 31 January. [Online] Available:
http://www.stoletie.ru/fakty_i_kommentarii/naneset_li_nam_ushherb_novyj_dogo
vor_s_norvegijej_2011-01-31.htm, accessed on December 12, 2013.
Conley, H. & Kraut, J. (2010). U.S. Strategic Interests in the Arctic. An Assessment of
Current Challenges and New Opportunities for Cooperation. A Report of the CSIS
Europe Program. Washington, DC: The Center for Strategic and International
Studies. [Online] Available:
http://csis.org/files/publication/100426_Conley_USStrategicInterests_Web.pdf,
accessed on December 12, 2013.
Konyshev & Sergunin
81
Fife, R.E. (2013). Svalbard and the Surrounding Maritime Areas. [Online] Available:
http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/ud/selected-topics/civil--rights/Spesiellfolkerett/folkerettslige-sporsmal-i-tilknytning-ti.html?id=537481#, accessed on
December 12, 2013.
(2008). Ilulissat Declaration. Arctic Ocean Conference, May 28. [Online] Available:
http://arcticcouncil.org/filearchive/Ilulissat-declaration.pdf, accessed on December
12, 2013.
International Institute for Strategic Studies (2012). Russia in the Arctic: economic interests
override military aspirations. Strategic Comments (43) November 26. [Online]
Available:
https://www.iiss.org/en/publications/strategic%20comments/sections/2012bb59/russia-in-the-arctic--economic-interests-override-military-aspirations-76ab,
accessed on December 12, 2013.
Kaczynski, V. (2007). US-Russian Bering Sea Marine Border Dispute: Conflict over Strategic
Assets, Fisheries and Energy Resources. Russian Analytical Digest 20, 2-5. [Online]
Available: http://www.css.ethz.ch/publications/pdfs/RAD-20-2-5.pdf, accessed on
December 12, 2013.
Klett, T.R. & Gautier, D. L. (2009). Assessment of Undiscovered Petroleum Resources of the
Barents Sea Shelf: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2009–3037. [Online] Available:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3037/pdf/FS09-3037.pdf, accessed on December 12,
2013.
Laruelle, M. (2014). Russia’s Arctic Strategies and the Future of the Far North. Armonk, N.Y.:
M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
Moe, A. (Forthcoming). Russia’s Arctic continental shelf claim: A slow burning fuse? In
Geopolitical and legal aspects of Canada's and Europe's Northern Dimensions, ed.
Mark Nuttall and Anita Dey Nuttall. Edmonton: CCI Press.
Olson, C., Seidenberg, M. & Selle, R. (1998). US-Russian maritime boundary giveaway. Orbis
42 (1), 74-89. [Online] Available:
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA20632370&v=2.1&u=stpe&it=r
&p=ITOF&sw=w, accessed on December 12, 2013.
Oreshenkov, A. (2010). Arctic Square of Opportunities. Russia in Global Affairs 4 (OctoberDecember). [Online] Available: http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/number/Arctic-Squareof-Opportunities-15085, accessed on December 12, 2013.
Palamar’, N. (2009). Nekotorye Aspekty Pogranichnogo Razgranicheniia Mezhdu Rossiiskoi
Federatsiei i SShA [Some Aspects of Boundary Delimitation Between the Russian
Federation and the USA]. Znanie. Ponimanie. Umenie 6. [Online] Available:
http://www.zpu-journal.ru/ezpu/2009/6/Palamar_Boundary_Differentiation/index.php?sphrase_id=4718,
accessed on December 12, 2013.
Portsel’, A. (2011). Spor o Spitsbergene: tochka ne postavlena [The dispute on Spitsbergen is
not over]. Arktika i Sever 3, 42-62.
Reut, O. (2011). Proshu ne ratifitsirovat’ [Please do not ratify]. [Online] Available:
http://liberty.ru/post/Proshu-ne-ratificirovat, accessed on December 12, 2013.
82
Journal of International Relations and Foreign Policy, Vol. 2(1), March 2014
State Department Watch (2009). 1990 U.S.-Soviet Executive Agreement on Maritime
Boundary. [Online] Available:
http://statedepartmentwatch.org/1990ExecAgreement.htm, accessed on December
12, 2013.
State Duma of the Russian Federation (2002). Postanovlenie Gosudarstvennoy Dumy
Federal’nogo Sobraniya Rossiyskoi Federatsii ot 14 Iyulya 2002 g. № 2880-III GD
«O Posledstviyakh Primeneniya Soglasheniya Mezhdu Soyuzom Sovetskikh
Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik i Soedinennymi Shtatami Ameriki o Linii
Razgranicheniya Morskikh Prostranstv 1990 Goda dlya Natsional’nykh Interesov
Rossiyskoi Federatsii” [Resolution of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the
Russian Federation, July 14, 2002, № 2880-III GD “On the Implications of the
Provisional Implementation of the Agreement Between the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics and the United States of America on the Line of Demarcation of Maritime
Spaces of 1990 for National Interests of the Russian Federation”]. [Online] Available:
http://zakon.law7.ru/base68/part1/d68ru1536.htm, accessed on December 12,
2013.
The Central Executive Committee of the Soviet Union (1964). Ob Obyavlenii Territoriei
SSSR Zemel’ i Ostrovov, Raspolozhennykh v Severnom Ledovitom Okeane, 15
Aprelya 1926 g. [On the Proclamation of Lands and Islands Located in the Arctic
Ocean as Territory of the USSR, 15 April 1926]. In Documenty Vneshnei Politiki
SSSR [USSR Foreign Policy Documents]. Moscow: Politizdat, 228. [Online]
Available: http://xx-vek-istoria.narod.ru/libr/istochnik/vnpol/ostovaSLO.html,
accessed on December 12, 2013.
The International Bering Sea Forum (2006). Issues. [Online] Available:
http://www.beringseaforum.org/issues.html, accessed on December 12, 2013.
(2010). Treaty between the Kingdom of Norway and the Russian Federation concerning
Maritime Delimitation and Cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean,
Nor.-Russ., Sept. 15. [Online] Available:
http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/UD/Vedlegg/Folkerett/avtale_engelsk.pdf,
accessed on December 12, 2013.
(1920). Treaty Concerning the Archipelago of Spitsbergen [Svalbard Treaty], Feb. 9, 43 Stat.
1892, 2 L.N.T.S. 7. [Online] Available:
http://www.sysselmannen.no/The_Svalbard_Treaty_9ssFy.pdf.file, accessed on
December 12, 2013.
United Nations (1958). Convention on the Continental Shelf, Apr. 29, 1958, 499 U.N.T.S.
311. [Online] Available:
http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_1_1958_conti
nental_shelf.pdf, accessed on December 12, 2013.
United Nations. 1982. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Dec. 10, 1982,
1833 U.N.T.S. 397. [Online] Available:
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf,
accessed on December 12, 2013.
U.S. Department of State (2009). Status of Wrangel and Other Arctic Islands. September 8.
[Online] Available: http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/128740.htm, accessed on
December 12, 2013.
Konyshev & Sergunin
83
U.S. Geological Survey (2008). Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal: Estimates of Undiscovered
Oil and Gas North of the Arctic Circle. [Online] Available:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3049/fs2008-3049.pdf, accessed on December 12,
2013.
Vylegzhanin, A. (2010). 20 Let “Vremennogo Primeneniya” Soglasheniya Mezhdu SSSR I
SShA o Linii Razgranichenia Morskikh Prostranstv [20 Years of “Provisional
Implementation” of the Agreement Between the USSR and the USA on the Line of
Demarcation of Maritime Spaces]. Vestnik MGIMO Universiteta 1, 1-10. [Online]
Available: http://www.vestnik.mgimo.ru/fileserver/10/vestnik_1011_vilegzhanin.pdf, accessed on December 12, 2013.
Zagorsky, A. (2013). Arkticheskie ucheniya Severnogo flota [The Arctic exercises of the
Northern Fleet]. [Online] Available:
http://www.imemo.ru/ru/publ/comments/2013/comm_2013_053.pdf, accessed on
December 12, 2013.